Op-Ed: Ellie Bufkin: Keir Starmer’s empty threat won’t save Gaza, it will reward the terrorists
The U.K.’s Prime Minister tried to make a splash in the Middle East with his announcement that he will recognize a Palestinian state in September unless Israel agrees to a ceasefire and commits to a two-state process, along with other demands.
But the reality is that this is a headline-grabbing ultimatum with all the moral seriousness of a hashtag campaign — and it is just as likely inspire Israel to comply: not at all. What it will do is embolden Hamas, degrade the already deteriorating deterrence posture, and further politicize humanitarian relief.
Let’s be precise about what happened. Starmer’s government tied state recognition to a list of “substantive steps” by Israel — a ceasefire, recommitment to a two-state framework, expanded aid access, and no annexations in the West Bank. Basically, the U.K. is threatening to redraw diplomatic lines while a terror army still holds hostages and fires rockets from civilian cover. This is not “peacemaking”; it’s performance.
Israel’s response was correct and unsurprising: this does nothing to establish peace in the region; it rewards Hamas. You can be critical of Israel’s actions both militarily and politically and still grasp the obvious incentive structure at play here. Starmer is telling the terrorists that their bloody atrocities over the past two years, committed brutally and in plain sight of the world, have earned them statehood.
The announcement from Downing Street detailed clearly that recognition would go ahead unless Israel shifts — Hamas’s conduct was not even a decisive variable.
Meanwhile, the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza is very real, and none of it is mitigated by virtue-signaling politicians in Europe. It’s mitigated by secure corridors, competent distribution, and stripping Hamas — which sparked this war with the October 7 massacre and still holds hostages — of governing control.
Hamas’s predation and the chaos it sows make aid delivery dangerous and often deadly. Anyone serious about relief has to be serious about Hamas as the obstacle. Starmer didn’t build a policy around that fact; he issued an ideological threat against Israel based mostly on incredibly biased media coverage which includes false data and misleading images meant to pull at the heartstrings of the Western gullible.
If Britain wants to help Gazans eat tomorrow rather than congratulate itself at the U.N. General Assembly in September, it should be demanding that Hamas release the remaining hostages, alive and dead, and back operational models that can actually move food — including working with the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF).
Instead, London is rewarding the very political dynamics that energize Hamas: a media ecosystem that long ago decided Israel is the villain regardless of circumstances, and persistently discounts true terrorist acts perpetuated by Hamas, including using Gazans as human shields and exploiting their hunger for an extended lifeline. That distortion machine turns public pressure into diplomatic leverage for Hamas — pressure that Starmer dutifully translates into a recognition deadline. It’s performative morality that gives fewer incentives to release the hostages and a longer war for civilians trapped under Hamas rule.
And history says Britain should know better. From the Mandatory Palestine era through the 1936–39 Arab Revolt and the botched endgame of the Mandate, London’s alternating gestures and half-measures repeatedly inflamed rather than solved the conflict. The conceit that the U.K. can impose legitimacy from the top down helped produce disaster then; the same conceit dressed up in modern leftism will not produce stability now.
Beyond Gaza, the broader strategic frame matters. The Abraham Accords opened a corridor to a different Middle East — one that integrates Israel with Arab economies and isolates Tehran and its terror proxies. That project is gravely undermined by grandstanding that signals Western fatigue and fractures coordination among U.S. allies. If London and Paris choose recognition as a pressure tactic against Israel, they risk torching the very regional architecture that could marginalize Hamas and constrain The Islamic Republic of Iran over the long term.
The U.K. statement also offers no “day after” plan. Who governs Gaza if Hamas survives intact and is politically rewarded by the West? Who stops Hamas from re-strengthening and re-arming via Iran? Recognition of a Palestinian State at UNGA by a few Western nations does not answer these questions; it dodges them. And when responsible governments dodge, terrorists decide.
If Britain were serious, it would condition any diplomatic moves on the immediate, verifiable release of all remaining hostages, publicly name and shame Hamas for obstructing and exploiting aid flows, and actually support practical aid channels. These moves would help starving Gazans now. Lean in on threats against Israel, you help Hamas and support its brutal regime.
Ellie Bufkin is the deputy director of communications at FDD. Formerly, she worked as the head writer for Fox & Friends on the Fox News Channel, a breaking news reporter at the Washington Examiner, an editorial staff writer at Townhall.com, and was a senior contributor at The Federalist.